..... purchased the business was conducted for a considerable time between the two partners each agreeing to take half share in the profits and losses, and on differences arising between them mediators settled those differences, the execution of the suit promissory note and the defendants 1,3 and 4, standing as sureties, forming an essential element in the settlement of the accounts ..... plaintiff and take the lorry. both the plaintiff and the second defendant accepted the decision of the panchayatdars. in his examination-in-chief itself, the plaintiff deposed that before the mediators, accounts of the partnership were settled and the settlement was entered in the account books and the plaintiff signed on one page and the second, defendant on another page. the ..... the second defendant maintained the accounts. these accounts were filed into court. each of the partners was entitled to a half share in the business. in the presence of three mediators, it was proposed to settle the account of the partnership, aa the plaintiff decided to stop his connection with the business, because the defendant was not properly bringing into account ..... defendant and carried on the business under the name and style of 'magiszchi lorry service'. differences arose between them and the plaintiff wanted to retire from the partnership. in a mediation, it was settled that he second defendant should take over the business with all assets and liabilities and that rs. 5000/- should be given to the plaintiff in full quit .....

..... did not send reply to the plaintiff's notice as he went at his father-in-law's instigation.'after the institution of the suit, there was an, attempt at mediation and settlement between the parties and according to the plaintiff the first defendant gave him the balance sheet ex. a.7, written in his own handwriting. this balance sheet if .....

..... of ramnad. the raja was claiming that he was entitled to the entirety of the compensation amount. but each one of these claims was settled on the advice of certain mediators. the respondents to the present appeal, kandaswami dorai, is the brother of the raja of ramnad, and, so far as he was concerned, it was agreed that he should receive .....

..... learned judge nor even in the grounds of appeal before us. a perusal of the record shows that the plaintiff has been making all efforts by peaceful means and friendly mediations to induce the defendant to take her back and that she and her advisers were evidently avoiding coining to court in the hope that the defendant would see reason and .....

..... , in the hands of all persons who may derive title under it, with the exception of the original party, whose conscience stands bound by the violation of his trust and mediated fraud. but, if the estate becomes re-vested in him, the original equity will re-attack to it in his hands.'in emphasising the intrinsic justice and the policy of .....

..... was not complied with, and she therefore filed a suit for maintenance, section 599 of 1958 on the file of the city civil court, madras. however, due to intervention of mediators, the case was compromised and a consent decree was passed, in and by which, without prejudice to the contentions of the parties, the husband (respondent herein) undertook to get the .....

veeraswami, j.1. the only question in this. second appeal is whether there was a valid gift of the a schedule property in favour of the first defendant-appellant. the gift was by her mother, the first plaintiff by a deed dated 7-9-1949. the first plaintiff had three daughters, the first defendant, one fathima and another sharfunnissa begum. she by that document purported to make a gift of several schedules of properties to each of the donees of whom the first defendant was one subject to a provision that each of the donees will have to secure maintenance to the donor in a certain form. the recital in the document was to the effect that the donor was in possession and that she put the donee, in this case, the first defendant, in possession of the a schedule property. apparently due to misunderstanding the first plaintiff purported to cancel the gift, in so far as it related to the first defendant, on 23.6.1958, and later gave away the a schedule property for charities under another document dated 25-6-1958. having done that, the first plaintiff came to court for a declaration of title and permanent injunction restraining the first defendant from interference. both the courts below were agreed in decreeing the suit on the ground that the gift was not completed by delivery of possession.2. it is argued, rather strenuously, by mr. sharfuddin, for the first defendant-appellant, that the finding, though concurrent it is, of the courts below, as to delivery of possession is not .....

orderg.r. jagadisan, j.1. this is a second appeal from the preliminary decree passed by learned district judge of kanyakumari in a mortgage action. the suit was instituted by the respondents herein for redemption of the mortgage. the courts below granted a decree for redemption and this appeal has been preferred by the defendants.2. i do not propose to set out the facts and circumstances of the case at any great length ; nor do i wish to refer to the contentions urged before me now, as in my opinion, a revised finding has to be called for from the lower appellate court in regard to one of the crucial questions upon which the learned district judge has failed to record a satisfactory finding.3. the plaintiffs alleged that the suit properties were mortgaged under an other deed dated 13-12-1107 m.e. for 20,500 fanams executed by one sooriyanarayana pillai, their predecessor-in-interest. the other document was in favour of one bhagavathi annachu. on his death, the defendant in the suit (appellant) has become entitled to the othi right. the claim of the plaintiffs to obtain redemption of that othi was resisted by the defendant on the ground that the document of othireally operated as a sale. there is a clause in the othi document that if the mortgage were not to be redeemed for a period of five years, the mortgagees should become the full owner of the property. a clause of that description is a clog on the equity of redumption and cannot certainly be upheld. but the further .....

venkatadri, j.1. the only question that arises for determination in this writ petition under article 226 of the constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari is whether the tribunal has got jurisdiction to revise or review its own order passed on 22nd december 1960.2. the facts are very simple and clear. the assessee is an exporter of coir mats and mattings at alleppey. he returned a net income of rs. 1827 for the period ended 31-12-1956, though his total receipts from business was to the tune of rs. 4.46 lakhs. the assessee was not maintaining regular books of account. on investigation and enquiry, the department found that several amounts were invested in the name of his wife in the eastern bank ltd., cochin. when the department called upon him to explain the source of the investment made in the name of his wife, the assessee was not able to explain it, but merely requested the department to treat the amount as undisclosed income spread over the assessed years. thereupon the department accepted the proposal subject to certain adjustments.3. subsequently penalty proceedings were taken against the assessee under section 28(i)(c) of the income-tax act and penalties of rs. 1000, rs. 1000 and rs. 600 were imposed for the years 1953-54. 1954-55 and 1957-58 respectively.4. the assessee preferred an appeal against the order to the appellate assistant commissioner who confirmed the penalties. against the order of the appellate assistant commissioner the assessee appealed to the .....

(1) the appellant challenges the order of the court below directing him to deposit into court 'cash security' of half of the suit claim without prejudice to his contentions. this order purports to have been passed under the provisions of order 38, rule 5, c. p. c. the propriety of this order is called in question now before me.(2) the appellant is the fourth defendant in the suit, o. s. no. 3618 of 1962, on the file of the city civil court, madras. the suit has been instituted by a certain bangaru reddiar, the respondent herein, for recovery of a sum of rs. 13,600 alleged to be due under a promissory note executed by a firm called bombay films. the firm is the first defendant in the suit. defendants 2, 3 and 4 are alleged to be the partners of this firm. it is common ground that the fourth defendant is not the actual executant of the promissory note, but he has been impleaded on the footing that he is a partner liable to answer the suit claim said to have been incurred for and on behalf of the first defendant firm.(3) the appellant resist the suit mainly on the round that he was not a partner on the date 15-12-1959, when this debt was incurred. according to him, he became a partner of the firm only on 21-6-1960. whether the contention of the fourth defendant-appellant is well founded or not it is clear that he does not admit liability of the suit claim and that there is no prima facie case against him as admittedly he did not join as an executant in the promissory note. the .....